Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Anti monarchy paranoia Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by little_tom)
    You both seem to be very uneducated on the atrocities caused by British imperialism.
    I think the only person here uneducated on these matters is you, who appears to be using them as justification for an absurd generalisation.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by little_tom)
    You both seem to be very uneducated on the atrocities caused by British imperialism.
    Not at all. But what about atrocities conducted by Emperors, Presidents, Fuhrers and Il Duce's? It's not just Monarchs that have ballsed up in the past. Everyone has. You can't single one out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Converse Rocker)
    People pull stuff like this out of their ass all the time. What did the Royal Family do to make you think this? Maybe they don't do 'normal' stuff because we the people would harass them constantly.

    I would never, ever wish I was a royal. The thought of being jetted off to other countries to shake hands with old men and maintain international relations - can't think of anything worse. People like to create this image that they sit in palaces sipping tea and call us all scum, it's laughable. If you're going to oppose the monarchy at least do it for legitimate reasons and not this ad hominem nonsense.
    Pretending, as you do that their life is more difficult than the average working person is sure to tick a few people off... I can certainly sympathise with the job these people have, and i'm under illusions as to its difficulties, but the perks are undeniable.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Wow seems like a lot of people are anti-monarchy, I remember a thread like this a while back and I was attacked as if the royal family paid my rent and I was being abusive about it.

    Do away with them. The whole "but we are gonna need a head of state etc" so? If the USA, Germany, France, can do away with a monarchy and have heads of states and fully functioning parts of governments why should we protect ours? Those countries managed to change, aside from the USA that had no monarchy to begin with.

    What I have noticed is British people are very fearful of change, they like to stick with whats been tried and tested no matter how bad it is. How can we encourage meritocracy in our education system when you have people like the Queen, Prince Williams, Harry etc.. going around spending money they have not earned? No surprise that our society has a sense of "entitlement".

    No surprise our education system is also laughed at by some European countries, its contradictory. Our education system says you need to work hard to gain financial security, yet you have a royal family that have not worked hard and have enough financial security to last several lifetimes.

    The Buckingham Palace, the Queen doesn't even live there half the time, but it is continually restored, cleaners and the like are paid to tend to it. For what? Tourism? When that argument always gets thrown around "The monarchy bring in tourism" but not everyone comes to London to see the monarchy if anything most people come for things like the Olympics we had in 2012, football events and just to see london in general.

    Some people act as if the whole country would come to a standstill if we kicked our monarchy out. Until we British people embrace change instead of trying to run away from it and hide behind flimsy arguments, we could actually create a more secure government where people actually know their rights. One where they don't feel continually ripped off.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alis-volatpropriis)
    What I have noticed is British people are very fearful of change
    But change for change's sake is pointless. What about the system is actually broken? Sure there are ways to reform what goes on - and that is being done constantly - but the old adage of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" comes to mind. Every country recognises the benefits of a ceremonial Head of State, even the US has had a (very very minor, I'll admit) movement to reinstate a 'Monarch-like figure' to take the ceremonial duties off the President's plate as he spends most of his time shaking hands for photos rather than on official duties.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    But change for change's sake is pointless. What about the system is actually broken? Sure there are ways to reform what goes on - and that is being done constantly - but the old adage of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" comes to mind. Every country recognises the benefits of a ceremonial Head of State, even the US has had a (very very minor, I'll admit) movement to reinstate a 'Monarch-like figure' to take the ceremonial duties off the President's plate as he spends most of his time shaking hands for photos rather than on official duties.
    The change would be beneficial to the country. Does it not bother you at all how much is spent on the royal family? I know they work, I know they have their own obligations, their own charities etc. I know they don't just sit around twiddling their thumbs.

    If anything, reduce the amount of money they can receive. I don't see why we can't have an upper middle class or just a middle class monarchy as opposed to a filthy rich monarchy. Turn the entire Buckingham Palace into a museum if anything, and you'll see how many thousands of people that will pay just to set foot inside the entire palace. That would most likely draw in more tourism money too.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alis-volatpropriis)
    The change would be beneficial to the country.
    How?

    Does it not bother you at all how much is spent on the royal family?
    No, because the exact same would be spent on any process to put in place and then 'run' an alternative Head of State, with accommodation and security required. So we'd make no saving whatsoever. We'd be worse off, in fact, because we wouldn't gain the money back from the Crown Estate.

    If anything, reduce the amount of money they can receive. I don't see why we can't have an upper middle class or just a middle class monarchy as opposed to a filthy rich monarchy. Turn the entire Buckingham Palace into a museum if anything, and you'll see how many thousands of people that will pay just to set foot inside the entire palace. That would most likely draw in more tourism money too.
    Buckingham Palace already is a museum open to the public. Ok, not all of it, but it's been open for years for people to go into.
    And even if we did dissolve the Monarchy, the family would still be independently wealthy, unless you're advocating theft?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    How?



    No, because the exact same would be spent on any process to put in place and then 'run' an alternative Head of State, with accommodation and security required. So we'd make no saving whatsoever. We'd be worse off, in fact, because we wouldn't gain the money back from the Crown Estate.



    Buckingham Palace already is a museum open to the public. Ok, not all of it, but it's been open for years for people to go into.
    And even if we did dissolve the Monarchy, the family would still be independently wealthy, unless you're advocating theft?
    I'm not advocating theft at all. At least the money they'd have would be their own and not state money. They would have to maintain their extravagant lifestyle and holidays themselves.

    I highly doubt a Head of State would cost the taxpayer £32.4 million- £33.3 million a year. David Cameron sure as hell doesn't cost us that much, so why would a head of state? I don't see other countries that have head of states bankrupting the country. So that's a huge leap to make. Yes the initial cost will be great but at least then, we'd be practicing what we preach. If you want to perpetuate the existence of a meritocracy within our education system then prove it. Kicking the monarchy out and replacing them with a more accountable structure would be more beneficial to our economy and culture.

    If Britain wants to maintain its reputation for having a strong government, then they need to respect their own democracy, minimise the deficit and kick them out.

    Did you know the monarchy successfully lobbied to have themselves removed entirely from our Freedom of Information laws? Who are they to lobby that right? What makes them so special that they can ask for absolute secrecy and be granted? The Monarchy is also well known for lobbying government ministers for improvements of their financial benefits. The Queen has asked for her budget to be increased many times. They practically work towards their own private agenda that we know nothing about. We don't know what goes on behind closed doors.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Not at all. But what about atrocities conducted by Emperors, Presidents, Fuhrers and Il Duce's? It's not just Monarchs that have ballsed up in the past. Everyone has. You can't single one out.
    I don't really know what exactly you want me to reply with here, we're talking specifically about the British monarchy who have the blood of millions on their hands historically. Pointing out "Emperors, Presidents and Fuhrers" has no relevance, and to say "you can't single X out because of Y" is a very, very rudimentary argument if we're debating history.

    They have no diplomatic value, that is already established. Their presence is merely symbolic, what I'm trying to say is that anyone that isn't primitive would not want to celebrate the monarchy, because they do not represent the values that pertain to a good, democratic society that was ideally designed by Western philosophers of the 18th century.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by katierose111)
    I am an anti monarchy person i guess. Though i am not opposed to them representing britain as celebrities, however. I seem to think it is massively unfair, like the qualifications, also their deaths are taken more seriously and they have never really 'done' anything.
    I am very girly so i guess in this world it can pass you by, but sometimes i just take a look out at our country, and wonder what we are doing. It just seems so - well strange.
    The queen sends people out to war, her relatives go, get the badges and would never actually fight and be killed.
    I am not a total commnuist but it also seems strange that people use up the energy resources and ge to keep the money.
    I was wondering if anyone else in the uk had this point of view. In ways it seems like a loathing for the rich, the not free people.
    I saw someone from oxford on here a boy, and he seemed to have something 'right' to say.
    Er, the monarch doesn't send people to war does she?

    I think there are more pressing issues than how rich the queen is, to be honest. I'm not a fan of aristocracy either (which is why I favour capitalism), but you need a sense of proportion.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alis-volatpropriis)
    I highly doubt a Head of State would cost the taxpayer £33.3 million- £33.3 million a year. David Cameron sure as hell doesn't cost us that much, so why would a head of state?
    While it's true Cameron's salary is nothing like that much, you are completely ignoring all the associated costs with running a Head of State. They'll have a staff which would almost have to be political, they'll require 24/7 security and they'd require accommodation and offices. None of which comes cheap and all of which would easily add up to the figure you quote. And that's only for 1 person. The figure you quote is actually for the entire Royal family.

    Kicking the monarchy out and replacing them with a more accountable structure would be more beneficial to our economy and culture.
    They are accountable. They are also separate. Which is a vital and required tool of any Government.

    If Britain wants to maintain its reputation for having a strong government, then they need to respect their own democracy, minimise the deficit and kick them out.
    You think getting rid of the Monarchy will minimise the deficit? A deficit that's running into the billions? A few million won't make any difference whatsoever.



    (Original post by little_tom)
    I don't really know what exactly you want me to reply with here, we're talking specifically about the British monarchy who have the blood of millions on their hands historically. Pointing out "Emperors, Presidents and Fuhrers" has no relevance, and to say "you can't single X out because of Y" is a very, very rudimentary argument if we're debating history.
    You're the one who brought up history. A history, I might add, that has naff all to do with the current family. Unless you're suggesting that anyone who might be in any way descended from someone who once broke the law must also themselves be considered a criminal I fail to see what relevancy it has. You're the one who has made the point of saying "But Kings have done x in the past" and I'm simply saying "so?" that's the past. Do you really think that that could happen in this day and age?!

    They have no diplomatic value, that is already established.
    Says who? I think you'll actually find the reality is very different. Just because you and others in this country may not believe it or not want to admit it does not make it fact. Other countries bend over backwards to impress when the Royal Family comes a calling and their citizens take extreme notice of it (for whatever reason) so the leaders of that country take significant notice and pull out all the stops. Ignoring that or refusing to acknowledge that is churlish in the extreme.

    Their presence is merely symbolic, what I'm trying to say is that anyone that isn't primitive would not want to celebrate the monarchy, because they do not represent the values that pertain to a good, democratic society that was ideally designed by Western philosophers of the 18th century.
    And why is symbolism such a bad thing? You'll also find that, simply, different people like different things and implying people are 'primitive' for having different opinions to you is likely to win you about zero debates.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    You're the one who brought up history. A history, I might add, that has naff all to do with the current family. Unless you're suggesting that anyone who might be in any way descended from someone who once broke the law must also themselves be considered a criminal I fail to see what relevancy it has. You're the one who has made the point of saying "But Kings have done x in the past" and I'm simply saying "so?" that's the past. Do you really think that that could happen in this day and age?!
    our foot-dragging on deposing our monarchs is a disgusting display of our true values, which apparently consist of being monstrous imperialist parasites and worshiping medieval tyrants

    you've gone from "its just a generalization" (being oblivious to what British imperialism actually did) to "history doesn't really mean anything", and you seem to think that just because the Queen descended from evil tyrants it's perfectly ok to leave her as the symbol of our country. pretty funny

    Says who? I think you'll actually find the reality is very different. Just because you and others in this country may not believe it or not want to admit it does not make it fact. Other countries bend over backwards to impress when the Royal Family comes a calling and their citizens take extreme notice of it (for whatever reason) so the leaders of that country take significant notice and pull out all the stops. Ignoring that or refusing to acknowledge that is churlish in the extreme.
    nation of island-dwellers rejects democracy; support for monarchy continues to remain high

    please don't make me chuckle whilst I drink my fanta


    And why is symbolism such a bad thing? You'll also find that, simply, different people like different things and implying people are 'primitive' for having different opinions to you is likely to win you about zero debates.
    did you even bother to read my post? you will find the answer to this stupid question there
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by little_tom)
    x
    Beg indulgence to expand on a point you've made.

    Let's say that your Great-great-great-great Grandfather was a murderer. Are you saying that I should treat you as a murderer?



    nation of island-dwellers rejects democracy; support for monarchy continues to remain high
    There are many forms of democracy, your continued ignorance of this makes me chuckle, so I guess we're both laughing.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Beg indulgence to expand on a point you've made.

    Let's say that your Great-great-great-great Grandfather was a murderer. Are you saying that I should treat you as a murderer?
    uhm this analogy kind of demonstrates your lack of historical knowledge and reading comprehension: "Great-great-great-great"? British Imperialism was still running strong in the 1900s... and I am not saying we should treat the Queen as a "murderer" - I'm saying that the monarchy - which - for the majority of its existence - has done nothing but pertain to values that would otherwise be rejected in modern society - and should have been abolished a long time ago. The Empire has dissolved but was that due to the Queen? No.


    There are many forms of democracy, your continued ignorance of this makes me chuckle, so I guess we're both laughing.
    I'm referring to AV. It's a lot funnier when you actually understand the joke.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    They don't cost the average citizen that much, they are an important part of national identity and culture
    This country truly is pathetic if a bunch of leaches reminding everyone of the "good ol' days" of a ruling class and unelected leaders is important part of our national identity and culture.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by little_tom)
    uhm this analogy kind of demonstrates your lack of historical knowledge and reading comprehension: "Great-great-great-great"? British Imperialism was still running strong in the 1900s... and I am not saying we should treat the Queen as a "murderer" - I'm saying that the monarchy - which - for the majority of its existence - has done nothing but pertain to values that would otherwise be rejected in modern society - and should have been abolished a long time ago. The Empire has dissolved but was that due to the Queen? No.
    Maybe, maybe not. But it hasn't been and is still supported by the majority. That makes it a democratic decision. Is that so hard to understand? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's wrong/doesn't mean that everyone else thinks the same way you do. Indeed, acknowledging that others have different opinions, different views and different ideals might help you better understand a great many things.


    I'm referring to AV. It's a lot funnier when you actually understand the joke.
    It's a lot funnier when you actually make amusing remarks. But do keep trying.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Maybe, maybe not. But it hasn't been and is still supported by the majority. That makes it a democratic decision. Is that so hard to understand? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's wrong/doesn't mean that everyone else thinks the same way you do. Indeed, acknowledging that others have different opinions, different views and different ideals might help you better understand a great many things.
    When did I ever say that the monarchy should be abolished because the majority want it to be abolished? Similarly, just because the majority are in favor of something doesn't make it equally right/wrong. Your arguments are becoming progressively weaker and you have yet to persuade me that the monarchy is a good thing and is not symbolic of our barbaric past.

    It's a lot funnier when you actually make amusing remarks. But do keep trying.
    Listen, you seem like a nice guy and all, but I would recommend enrolling onto a history course at university or at the very least read a few history books, because as far I'm concerned you are blabbering about something you have literally no idea about.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by little_tom)
    When did I ever say that the monarchy should be abolished because the majority want it to be abolished? Similarly, just because the majority are in favor of something doesn't make it equally right/wrong. Your arguments are becoming progressively weaker and you have yet to persuade me that the monarchy is a good thing and is not symbolic of our barbaric past.
    You're doing feck all to convince me they're bad. I've met [some of] them. I like them on a personal level and my entire argument comes down to one single point; I fail to see what possible benefits we'd get from getting rid of them. Indeed, I only see downsides from getting rid of them, Not because of what they would no longer bring, but because of the negatives associated with any alternative. You've blathered on now for 5 or 6 posts and have yet to make any single point aside from your own inference.

    You keep suggesting that the arguments are weak. If that were the case they'd be easy to counter. Yet you haven't. What does that tell you?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    You're doing feck all to convince me they're bad. I've met [some of] them. I like them on a personal level and my entire argument comes down to one single point; I fail to see what possible benefits we'd get from getting rid of them. Indeed, I only see downsides from getting rid of them, Not because of what they would no longer bring, but because of the negatives associated with any alternative. You've blathered on now for 5 or 6 posts and have yet to make any single point aside from your own inference.

    You keep suggesting that the arguments are weak. If that were the case they'd be easy to counter. Yet you haven't. What does that tell you?
    I could care less if I'm convincing you or not, or if you like the Royal Family on a personal level or not, because you've already demonstrated you know nothing about the history of the British monarchy, and have already derided "history" as useless.

    I'm going to end this here. Going by your posts and terrible "analogies" you didn't even know that Elizabeth II was head during several imperialist invasions such as that of Egypt w/ France during the 1950s.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by little_tom)
    I could care less if I'm convincing you or not, or if you like the Royal Family on a personal level or not, because you've already demonstrated you know nothing about the history of the British monarchy, and have already derided "history" as useless.

    I'm going to end this here. Going by your posts and terrible "analogies" you didn't even know that Elizabeth II was head during several imperialist invasions such as that of Egypt w/ France during the 1950s.
    I know plenty and find your continued condescension intensely irritating and far beneath anybody seriously attempting debate. You're on here presenting a platform for discussion, bringing forth your opinions to influence the discussion and conversation and so far failing miserably. You are not showing what relevancy your views have, merely spouting discordant facts that affect nothing.

    Yet despite all that, I'm showing you considerably more respect than you are showing me. Why? Could just be that I've got more class than you. Could be because you're being overly petulant. But whatever the reason is, you're not doing yourself any favours.


    I also know that those incursions of which you speak were conceived, designed, instigated and overseen by politicians. What relevancy does the Crown have to that? If you are simply using the tenuous link that 'they were in charge' during the time then why couldn't I counter with the fact that they were also 'in charge' during the industrial revolution, something which proved of incredible benefit to the entire globe and that therefore they are a force for good?
 
 
 
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.